It’s amazing how the tail on the right is wagging the dog !

There’s a lot of animosity in here .

We are NOT talking about the issues facing the candidates that they have to deal with. 
We are talking about the issues the FOLKS have to deal with that are caused BY the candidates. 

@MrWhatsItToYa

Federal Spending due to COVID explains a good portion under the Trump years, but as I said earlier, he was by no means a fiscal conservative.  He in fact wanted to pass his own "infrastructure bill," that I didn't like at all.  I'm a big believer that lots of federal spending should be done at the State and Local level, instead.  Let's say Cincinnati wants a new airport, as an example.  Should I as a resident of another state be willing to pick up the tab ?  No ! Let those people in Ohio / Cincinnati vote to put that measure on their own local ballot for their own decision.  RAIDERS did a great job in post #56 illustrating how these 'earmarks' run rampant through the halls of Congress, and both Republicans & Democrats do it, and it sickens me.   It is FEDERAL SPENDING Earmarks that should be really done at the LOCAL LEVEL.  But you and I and everyone else in this country will be paying for it in one way or another,.. via further money printing (i.e. inflation) AND Higher Taxes.   So, get used to it.  

You see, I have no problem criticizing Trump, because I realize he's "still"  the best choice out there on the Republican side, even if I don't agree with everything he does...  

@MrWhatsItToYa 

I am simply pointing out you are rallying around a key narrative being pushed by your side.  You seem to believe it. 

I am saying to you that the polls from the people indicate that the narrative is very wrong. 

So, yes, I am questioning why you continue to believe it.  
I am also asking if you have anything to back it up?  If not, I am suggesting you do research as to why it is wrong. 

You can look at it as an assignment if you like.  I like to look at it as being more informed about the issues, instead of blindly believing the narrative. 

No sir. He was one that did not vote for it back then. 

Lol... Easy there,  tiger.    

House rejects McCarthy bill that would have averted shutdown

Congress remained on track Friday morning to trigger a government shutdown this weekend, as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy suffered another high-profile defeat when the House failed to advance a last-ditch stopgap bill to extend government funding beyond Saturday.

Twenty-one Republicans crossed over to vote with all the Democrats against the bill for a vote of 198-232.

The measure – a 30-day extension that would slash funding from current levels – also includes strict GOP-led border policies.

@MrWhatsItToYa

 The Democrats that were opposed were for various other reasons.  But if you recall Trump and McConnell had a real problem with getting a lot of Republicans on board:

with only Sens. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Tom Carper (Del.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) voting “no.”

But the level of GOP support had been in question for days with Republican leaders stopping short of pledging to be able to get a majority of their 53 members. When the bill passed the House it garnered only 65 of the 197 House Republicans.

The White House has warned of shutdown impacts to national security, including the 1.3 million active-duty troops who would not get paid during a shutdown.

“Extreme House Republicans are playing
partisan games with peoples’ lives and marching
our country toward a government shutdown that
would have damaging impacts across the country
– including undermining our national security and
forcing service members across the country and
around the world to work without pay,”
the White House said in a fact sheet shared with reporters

Tax Revenues under "Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" (TCJA) Have Met or Exceeded Historic Levels 

Projections ; 

Regarding revenue estimates for TCJA, the law’s major changes, including a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent as well as the introduction of GILTI and other international provisions, resulted in considerable uncertainty about how the law might affect tax revenue, particularly due to effects on profit shifting and economic growth. While the JCT estimated in December 2017 that TCJA would reduce tax revenue by $1.5 trillion over the period 2018 to 2027, the JCT also provided a macroeconomic analysis of the bill estimating that TCJA would increase the average level of GDP over the budget window by 0.7 percent, resulting in an offsetting increase in revenue of $451 billion over the budget window.[8]

Actuality ; 

Actual revenue collections have generally matched or exceeded these forecasts, though noting again the influence of several non-tax factors. Federal tax collections dropped initially in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 to 16.4 percent of GDP, below the long-run average of 17.2 percent since World War II, and stayed at about that level in the pandemic year of 2020. Reflecting the rebounding economy and booming stock and housing markets, tax collections soared to 17.9 percent in 2021 and 19.6 percent in 2022, the highest level since the dot-com bubble in 2000 and nearly the highest level on record. Average federal tax collections in the five years since TCJA’s enactment are about 17.3 percent of GDP, higher than the 16.7 percent forecasted by the CBO following its passage, higher than most years leading up to TCJA, and higher than the long-run average of 17.2 percent.

Federal Tax Revenues are approaching Record Highs !!!  

Conclusion ; So it ain't the Tax Revenues that are the problem with our federal debt , ... it's our damn SPENDING !! 

Good. 

@MrWhatsItToYa

 You don't think him facing 91 charges,and a lot of those charges having to do with trying to overturn our election results.Is an issue that folks have to deal with that are caused by the candidate?I kinda realize trumpers really don't have a legitimate argument to defend attacking your own country,but that don't mean those charges are just going to go away.

I do. Absolutely. Bit who else are the idiotic Republicans going to turn to.  They had 4 years to get another guy ready—just like the Democrats had while Trump was in office; neither side did.  So these are the guys, like it or not. 

BUT I am not talking about that. I was addressing the issue you brought up to start with.  
Unless you just give up on that one or want to start more with this nonsense about Trump all of you are obsessed with. 
I prefer your original topic AND this would be entirely separate to me. 

I can take out the good from the bad with any person; the Left cannot do that.  

I see where Trump was better for the economy and the Left refuses to acknowledge that.  

I think you are confusing the two issues maybe?  I am not sure what your point is here?

@MrWhatsItToYa

 Are you referring to this vote?

• Senate: "Voting yes were 0 Democrats and 51 Republicans. Voting no were 46 Democrats, 0 Republicans and 2 independents."
• House: "Voting yes were 0 Democrats and 227 Republicans. Voting no were 191 Democrats and 12 Republicans. ... There are 3 vacancies."
<

You think trump is the most fiscally responsible candidate out there,the guy who caused about 25% of our total debt in just 4 years?

So you say in post #64 you ain't a rino,and you are a fiscal conservative.But you are gonna vote for a rino who also increased the debt by 25% in 4 years?Ha,nothing like sticking to your principals.

Haha!  I realize that. And I think most of us agree with that sentiment. 

I am asking about your idea that Republicans only bellyache about depending when Democrats are in office, etc. 

.

[Quote: Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa]Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa  Are you referring to this vote? Senate: "Voting yes were 0 Democrats and 51 Republicans. Voting no were 46 Democrats, 0 Republicans and 2 independents." House: "Voting yes were 0 Democrats and 227 Republicans. Voting no were 191 Democrats and 12 Republicans. ... There are 3 vacancies."

.

I hear Germany's economy was absolutely fantastic under Hitler,zero percent unemployment.Can you "take out the good from the bad" there also?You are right,I can't do that,a crook and a conman,will always be a crook and a conman to me.

What was the original issue I brought up to start with,McCarthy's spinelessness?

I'm going to get some dinner and watch the Cubs game,talk to you later.